SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted January 23, 2018 JFC....What is the insurance policy Strzok refers to then? It's this investigation. After thinking some more I see your point. Yes obviously in September Strzok & Page are in 'the investigation'. However here's a more full string of texts. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/text-messages-between-strzok-and-page-may-19-2017 Those are from May 2017 when Mueller had just been hired. So it's at that time that he's ambivalent about joining Mueller's team and wondering whether he would be happier with a top job title or making more money in the private sector. Doesn't sound all that unrelatable to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,038 Posted January 23, 2018 While were releasing stuff! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 23, 2018 After thinking some more I see your point. Yes obviously in September Strzok & Page are in 'the investigation'. However here's a more full string of texts. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/text-messages-between-strzok-and-page-may-19-2017 Those are from May 2017 when Mueller had just been hired. So it's at that time that he's ambivalent about joining Mueller's team and wondering whether he would be happier with a top job title or making more money in the private sector. Doesn't sound all that unrelatable to me. Where they're talking about an insurance policy is back in 2016 AFTER Trump wins the Republican nomination but BEFORE the election. There was a clear conspiracy among the top DOJ and FBI people. Review the time frame of those texts again. The missing texts are from Dec 2016 to May 2017 when these two brazen people would have been discussing various aspects of the Russia Collusion story. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted January 23, 2018 Release the Hounds!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted January 24, 2018 how did they interfere ? They spent $100k on facebook ads. $100k Facebook ads Serious serious business. Some would call it collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 24, 2018 They spent $100k on facebook ads. $100k Facebook ads Serious serious business. Some would call it collusion. Posts like this show how foolish you are. Meanwhile...you have texts where people dont like Trump and you think thats corruption. Where someone in Muellers team gave a donation to the DNC so they cant be impartial. Utterly delusional Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted January 24, 2018 Posts like this show how foolish you are. Meanwhile...you have texts where people dont like Trump and you think thats corruption. Where someone in Muellers team gave a donation to the DNC so they cant be impartial. Utterly delusional So exactly when are you going to not be around here much? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 24, 2018 Posts like this show how foolish you are. Meanwhile...you have texts where people dont like Trump and you think thats corruption. Where someone in Muellers team gave a donation to the DNC so they cant be impartial. Utterly delusional Websters defines delusional as http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showuser=9885 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted January 24, 2018 Where they're talking about an insurance policy is back in 2016 AFTER Trump wins the Republican nomination but BEFORE the election. There was a clear conspiracy among the top DOJ and FBI people. Review the time frame of those texts again. The missing texts are from Dec 2016 to May 2017 when these two brazen people would have been discussing various aspects of the Russia Collusion story. Just so you know, I'm not arguing or debating with you. In general I agree bias in an investigation can be poison to an investigation. - But I'm just asking you to check the date of the text about the 'no there there'. I posted the link above, it appears to be 5/17/17, so I think they were specifically talking about the issue of whether to join Mueller's team there. That's it. Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 24, 2018 Just so you know, I'm not arguing or debating with you. In general I agree bias in an investigation can be poison to an investigation. - But I'm just asking you to check the date of the text about the 'no there there'. I posted the link above, it appears to be 5/17/17, so I think they were specifically talking about the issue of whether to join Mueller's team there. That's it. Thanks. Sorry; yes that specific text is from AFTER the 5 month blackout but BEFORE he joins Mueller's investigation. However, you know the FBI's 'investigation' supposedly started in July 2016 and was signed (initiated) by none other than one Peter Strzok. Yes.........he was involved in clearing Hillary, starting the Russia investigation, interviewing Flynn without an attorney and Mueller's team. Was he also involved with Uranium One? Benghazi? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted January 24, 2018 Sorry; yes that specific text is from AFTER the 5 month blackout but BEFORE he joins Mueller's investigation. However, you know the FBI's 'investigation' supposedly started in July 2016 and was signed (initiated) by none other than one Peter Strzok. Yes.........he was involved in clearing Hillary, starting the Russia investigation, interviewing Flynn without an attorney and Mueller's team. Was he also involved with Uranium One? Benghazi? Ok, and a little fyi for you: - Every email that was ever recovered from Hillary - including every single one posted by Wiki - was recovered by Strzok. He sent instructions to preserve and gather emails from almost every government agency and every vendor Hillary used. - SO when Trump supporters criticize the FBI because the DOJ did not indict Hillary remember the only reason you know about what she did and when she did it and how is because of the efforts of Peter Strzok. The email where Cheryl Mills and Pagliano talk about deleting data after the Benghazi subpoena? - Recovered by Strzok. The email where Hillary talks with her daughter about Benghazi being a military hit and not a riot? Recovered by Strzok. The email where Hillary's appointment to advisory committee talks about his comments to the press? Recovered by Strzok. Etc. The FBI actually recovered some of Hillary's deleted email. Strzok did that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,656 Posted January 24, 2018 Ok, and a little fyi for you: - Every email that was ever recovered from Hillary - including every single one posted by Wiki - was recovered by Strzok. He sent instructions to preserve and gather emails from almost every government agency and every vendor Hillary used. - SO when Trump supporters criticize the FBI because the DOJ did not indict Hillary remember the only reason you know about what she did and when she did it and how is because of the efforts of Peter Strzok. The email where Cheryl Mills and Pagliano talk about deleting data after the Benghazi subpoena? - Recovered by Strzok. The email where Hillary talks with her daughter about Benghazi being a military hit and not a riot? Recovered by Strzok. The email where Hillary's appointment to advisory committee talks about his comments to the press? Recovered by Strzok. Etc. So he did the basics in an investigation, preserving evidence, and that's supposed to dismiss everything else? And if you haven't been following, they knew she was being exonerated way before the investigation was complete. No need to not play it straight. Nothing to be gained. Pre-determined outcome was in the bag. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted January 24, 2018 So he did the basics in an investigation, preserving evidence, and that's supposed to dismiss everything else? And if you haven't been following, they knew she was being exonerated way before the investigation was complete. No need to not play it straight. Nothing to be gained. Pre-determined outcome was in the bag. No, it doesn't have to dismiss everything else. I am just point out that Strzok did some good things, and actually I wouldn't call those efforts to obtain her emails just "basic", it was a huge effort. I'm not sure who posted it but it was a Trump supporter and it was over 110 pages of letters from Strzok demanding that every byte of data be gathered. I'm sure Hillary did not like that one bit. Her position was first that she owed nothing, then that she owed only what she gave to State when forced to. I'd say that about 75% of everything that Hillary critics learned afterwards in 2015-16 was because of what Strzok's team uncovered. I'd just say wrap that into the discussion because that's not a guy trying to whitewash things. - If people get into 'gross negligence' I'm willing to concede that people who think she was guilty of that have rational, reasonable grounds for arguing that. Obviously someone at the FBI did as well at one point (because they changed the language). I really don't want to hash that out any further. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,485 Posted January 24, 2018 So the Russian collusion was a diversion by the Dems because they knew they were vulnerable for all of their corrupt actions once they lost the election to an outsider. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted January 24, 2018 So the Russian collusion was a diversion by the Dems because they knew they were vulnerable for all of their corrupt actions once they lost the election to an outsider.One sentence sums it all up. Can't wait for this to set sho off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 24, 2018 So the Russian collusion was a diversion by the Dems because they knew they were vulnerable for all of their corrupt actions once they lost the election to an outsider. No. This FBI bs is the diversion. Its obvious to pretty much everyone but complete nutjobs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 24, 2018 No, it doesn't have to dismiss everything else. I am just point out that Strzok did some good things, and actually I wouldn't call those efforts to obtain her emails just "basic", it was a huge effort. I'm not sure who posted it but it was a Trump supporter and it was over 110 pages of letters from Strzok demanding that every byte of data be gathered. I'm sure Hillary did not like that one bit. Her position was first that she owed nothing, then that she owed only what she gave to State when forced to. I'd say that about 75% of everything that Hillary critics learned afterwards in 2015-16 was because of what Strzok's team uncovered. I'd just say wrap that into the discussion because that's not a guy trying to whitewash things. - If people get into 'gross negligence' I'm willing to concede that people who think she was guilty of that have rational, reasonable grounds for arguing that. Obviously someone at the FBI did as well at one point (because they changed the language). I really don't want to hash that out any further. Come on...he was so corrupt and wanting to help her that he did all that...preserved data...and the FBI wanted her so much that they leaked no real information about an investigation into Trump prior to the election. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Hand 482 Posted January 24, 2018 No. This FBI bs is the diversion. Its obvious to pretty much everyone but complete nutjobs. That simply isn’t true. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 24, 2018 No, it doesn't have to dismiss everything else. I am just point out that Strzok did some good things, and actually I wouldn't call those efforts to obtain her emails just "basic", it was a huge effort. I'm not sure who posted it but it was a Trump supporter and it was over 110 pages of letters from Strzok demanding that every byte of data be gathered. I'm sure Hillary did not like that one bit. Her position was first that she owed nothing, then that she owed only what she gave to State when forced to. I'd say that about 75% of everything that Hillary critics learned afterwards in 2015-16 was because of what Strzok's team uncovered. I'd just say wrap that into the discussion because that's not a guy trying to whitewash things. - If people get into 'gross negligence' I'm willing to concede that people who think she was guilty of that have rational, reasonable grounds for arguing that. Obviously someone at the FBI did as well at one point (because they changed the language). I really don't want to hash that out any further. Yes, at first glance it looked like he was doing his job. However, the texts reveal that he positioned himself to exonerate her reference his MYE Mid Year Exam a.k.a. Clinton Email probe where he says he is under pressure to finish it now that Trump won the Republican nomination. He references unfinished business and other texts reveal the investigation's conclusion was already reached. All those emails were available otherwise at the NSA.............trust me on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 24, 2018 https://lawfareblog.com/how-many-devin-nuness-gop-colleagues-intelligence-committee-will-stand-accuracy-his-memo-hint-not Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 24, 2018 So he did the basics in an investigation, preserving evidence, and that's supposed to dismiss everything else? And if you haven't been following, they knew she was being exonerated way before the investigation was complete. No need to not play it straight. Nothing to be gained. Pre-determined outcome was in the bag. Actually they did their best to make sure everything was included to reduce the chances of the investigation being reopened. Include everything that way there's nothing left for people to point at saying "You left this out". Smart on their part but they didn't count on Weiner being exposed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 24, 2018 https://lawfareblog.com/how-many-devin-nuness-gop-colleagues-intelligence-committee-will-stand-accuracy-his-memo-hint-not lawfareblog.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted January 24, 2018 Yes, at first glance it looked like he was doing his job. However, the texts reveal that he positioned himself to exonerate her reference his MYE Mid Year Exam a.k.a. Clinton Email probe where he says he is under pressure to finish it now that Trump won the Republican nomination. He references unfinished business and other texts reveal the investigation's conclusion was already reached.... I think everyone following the Hillary email investigation knew that the FBI would have to wrap it up by the time the general election started. Obviously the Dems had to know if their candidate was going to be indicted or not or whatever. The FBI finally did it just on the eve of the Convention which was just about the latest possible date. Helping Hillary would have meant doing it January or March or maybe even the previous fall. Let me ask you something HT referenced above - didn't you say that it was Strzok who originally put 'grossly negligent' in to the Hillary investigation memo (only to later remove it)? Am I right that was supposedly Strzok? Why would he have put that language in to begin with? - eta - If you look at his text where he points out that Lynch's recusal was a 'profile in courage' it looks like he was being snarky and was not all approving of her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 24, 2018 Let me ask you something HT referenced above - didn't you say that it was Strzok who originally put 'grossly negligent' in to the Hillary investigation memo (only to later remove it)? Am I right that was supposedly Strzok? Why would he have put that language in to begin with? - eta - If you look at his text where he points out that Lynch's recusal was a 'profile in courage' it looks like he was being snarky and was not all approving of her. Haven't heard that Strzok is the one who originated the exoneration memo. I know he's the one who changed the wording FROM criminal implications to benign. Who cares if he was being snarky to Lynch...............maybe he's a racist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,485 Posted January 24, 2018 During the financial crisis, the federal government bailed out banks it declared too big to fail. Fearing their bankruptcy might trigger economic Armageddon, the feds propped them up with taxpayer cash. Something similar is happening now at the FBI, with the Washington wagons circling the agency to protect it from charges of corruption. This time, the appropriate tag line is too big to believe. Yet each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of Americas premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a secret society and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe. More support for this view involves the FBIs use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party likely without telling the court of the dossiers political link. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/24/michael-goodwin-evidence-suggests-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-fbi.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted January 24, 2018 Haven't heard that Strzok is the one who originated the exoneration memo. I know he's the one who changed the wording FROM criminal implications to benign. Who cares if he was being snarky to Lynch...............maybe he's a racist. Well I don't know if he did, but he obviously edited it so it may have been his to begin with. As for his comments about Lynch, he was was obviously mocking her decision to step aside, clearly he seemed pretty cynical about the decision: Strzok said in a July 1 text message that the timing of Lynch’s announcement “looks like hell.” And Page appears to mockingly refer to Lynch’s decision to accept the FBI’s conclusion in the case as a “real profile in courag(e) since she knows no charges will be brought.” - AP The Comey press conference was July 5th, a Tuesday. Hillary was interviewed on the 2nd, a Saturday, Strzok's text was on July 1st, the day before the interview. - It sounds to me like Strzok is mocking Lynch because he knows the decision was made by the DOJ, not the FBI, but Lynch was unwilling to stand in front of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 24, 2018 https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/956273726126985218 Such a credible memo they wont even release it to the Senate Intel Committee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted January 24, 2018 https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/956273726126985218 Such a credible memo they wont even release it to the Senate Intel Committee. You keep telling yourself that. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 24, 2018 https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/956300478010351617 So the super secret memo is based on information the authors havent actually seen? And Trumpsnown DOJ is telling them not to release it. Falling apart quickly... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted January 25, 2018 https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/956300478010351617 So the super secret memo is based on information the authors havent actually seen? And Trumpsnown DOJ is telling them not to release it. Falling apart quickly... You keep telling yourself that sparky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 25, 2018 https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/956300478010351617 So the super secret memo is based on information the authors havent actually seen? And Trumpsnown DOJ is telling them not to release it. Falling apart quickly... It's based on the HIC investigation. And the DOJ is still filled with Obama's henchmen. One of them is saying this might have National Security concerns i.e. it'll make FBI people go to jail. Fock em....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,645 Posted January 26, 2018 Gotta love these guys man. It's like playing whack-a-mole. They threw complete bullshit up. It gets whacked in with facts. They never come back and say yeah I up. They just moved on to the next mole. Lather rinse repeat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted January 26, 2018 Gotta love these guys man. It's like playing whack-a-mole. They threw complete bullshit up. It gets whacked in with facts. They never come back and say yeah I ###### up. They just moved on to the next mole. Lather rinse repeat. What is funny is that you are describing Sho and yourself to a T. The left is so twisted right now they are SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT. L O L Just a few short months ago they were rioting and assassinating police officers, protesting the National Anthem because of cops. Now they are defending the "integrity" and "sanctity" of law enforcement. Lordy. BLM gonna be pissed. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 26, 2018 DOJ run by Trumps guys...but its all Obamas fault? Thanks for quoting that nonsense Saints. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 26, 2018 What is funny is that you are describing Sho and yourself to a T. The left is so twisted right now they are SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT. L O L Just a few short months ago they were rioting and assassinating police officers, protesting the National Anthem because of cops. Now they are defending the "integrity" and "sanctity" of law enforcement. Lordy. BLM gonna be pissed. Your first line is crap. Your narrative is being destroyed...just like the rest of the bogus conspiracy theories you buy into.Your whole post is quite ridiculous Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,656 Posted January 26, 2018 What is funny is that you are describing Sho and yourself to a T. The left is so twisted right now they are SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT. L O L Just a few short months ago they were rioting and assassinating police officers, protesting the National Anthem because of cops. Now they are defending the "integrity" and "sanctity" of law enforcement. Lordy. BLM gonna be pissed. When Obamas DOJ cleared the cop in Ferguson how did the left react? The Feds weren't so sacrosanct then Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted January 26, 2018 Posts like this show how foolish you are. Meanwhile...you have texts where people dont like Trump and you think thats corruption. Where someone in Muellers team gave a donation to the DNC so they cant be impartial. Utterly delusional Muh Facebook ads! https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-25/facebook-says-insignificant-overlap-between-russia-ads-trump Facebook Inc. told a Senate panel that it has detected “only what appears to be insignificant overlap” between targeting of ads and content promoted by a pro-Kremlin Russia group and by the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Facebook said it has no evidence that the Russian Internet Research Agency, which disseminated fake news and ads, targeted its efforts based on U.S. voter registration data. Their targeting was “relatively rudimentary, targeting broad locations and interests,” the company said. Any revenue that Facebook made from ads run by the IRA was “immaterial,” it added How again did Russia collude/interfere/sway/rig the election? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted January 26, 2018 Posts like this show how foolish you are. Meanwhile...you have texts where people dont like Trump and you think thats corruption. Where someone in Muellers team gave a donation to the DNC so they cant be impartial. Utterly delusional "Insurance policy". People are going to prison. Even Saints isn't dumb enough to defend this . IG Horowitz has been running the "real" investigation that everyone has been calling for. The only question is will people accept the results if their people are the ones going to prison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 26, 2018 Muh Facebook ads! https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-25/facebook-says-insignificant-overlap-between-russia-ads-trump How again did Russia collude/interfere/sway/rig the election? That would be great...itd Facebook was a key part to the investigation. Muh? Again...the sign of an ignorant hack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
